Dataset Information

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in postoperative atrial fibrillation: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a single-center, randomized, and prospective trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Postoperative atrial fibrillation is the most common clinical complication after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It is associated with a high risk of both stroke and death and increases the length of hospital stay and costs. This study aimed to evaluate anticoagulants in postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Methods

A single-center, randomized, prospective, and open-label study. The trial was conducted in Heart Institute at University of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomized to anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or warfarin plus enoxaparin bridging. The primary objective was the cost-effectiveness evaluated by quality-adjusted life years, using the SF-6D questionnaire. The secondary end point was the combination of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, thromboembolic events, infections, bleeding, readmissions, and surgical reinterventions. The safety end point was any bleeding using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis score. Follow-up period was 30 days after hospital discharge.

Results

We analyzed 324 patients and 53 patients were randomized. The median cost-effectiveness was $1423.20 in the warfarin group versus $586.80 in the rivaroxaban group (P = .002). The median cost was lower in the rivaroxaban group, $450.20 versus $947.30 (P < .001). The secondary outcome was similar in both groups, 44.4% in warfarin group versus 38.5% in the rivaroxaban group (P = .65). Bleeding occured in 25.9% in the warfarin group versus 11.5% in the rivaroxaban group (P = .18).

Conclusions

Rivaroxaban was more cost-effective when compared with warfarin associated with enoxaparin bridging in postoperative atrial fibrillation after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

SUBMITTER: Pereira MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10556832 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in postoperative atrial fibrillation: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a single-center, randomized, and prospective trial.

Pereira Marcel de Paula MP Lima Eduardo Gomes EG Pitta Fabio Grunspun FG Gowdak Luís Henrique Wolff LHW Mioto Bruno Mahler BM Carvalho Leticia Neves Solon LNS Darrieux Francisco Carlos da Costa FCDC Mejia Omar Asdrubal Vilca OAV Jatene Fabio Biscegli FB Serrano Carlos Vicente CV

JTCVS open 20230602

<h4>Objectives</h4>Postoperative atrial fibrillation is the most common clinical complication after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It is associated with a high risk of both stroke and death and increases the length of hospital stay and costs. This study aimed to evaluate anticoagulants in postoperative atrial fibrillation.<h4>Methods</h4>A single-center, randomized, prospective, and open-label study. The trial was conducted in Heart Institute at University of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients w ...[more]

PMID: 37808050

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeComparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and high polypharmacy are unknown.MethodsWe used Medicare administrative data to evaluate patients with new atrial fibrillation diagnosis from 2015 to 2017, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients taking ≤3, 4 to 8, or ≥9 other prescription medications were categorized as having low, moderate, or high polypharmacy, respectively. Within polypharmacy categories, patients receiving apixaban 5 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity score matching. Study outcomes included ischemic stroke, bleeding, and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe study cohort included 6985 patients using apixaban, 3838 using rivaroxaban, and 6639 using warfarin. In the propensity-matched cohorts there was no difference in risk of ischemic stroke between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy. However, among patients with high polypharmacy, the risk of ischemic stroke was higher with apixaban compared with warfarin (adjusted hazard ratio 2.34 [95% CI, 1.01-5.42]; P=0.05) and similar to rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.67-2.84]; P=0.4). There was no difference in risk of death between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy, but apixaban was associated with a higher risk of death compared with rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.01-4.08]; P=0.05) in the high polypharmacy group. Apixaban had lower bleeding risk compared with warfarin in the low polypharmacy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.90]; P=0.02), but there was no difference in bleeding between the 3 drugs in the moderate and high polypharmacy groups.ConclusionsOur study suggests that among patients with significant polypharmacy (>8 drugs), there may be a higher stroke and mortality risk with apixaban compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban. However, differences were of borderline significance.

Project description:IntroductionNew target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.MethodsHealth care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method.ResultsMatches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).ConclusionDespite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with chronic kidney disease is uncertain. We compared rivaroxaban with warfarin across the range of kidney function in adults with AF.Study designMulticenter retrospective cohort.Setting & participantsAdults with AF and a measure of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); using administrative data from 5 jurisdictions across Australia and Canada (2011-2018). Kidney function was categorized as eGFR ≥60, 45-59, 30-44, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients receiving dialysis and kidney transplant recipients were excluded.ExposuresNew dispensation of either rivaroxaban or warfarin.OutcomesComposite (1) effectiveness outcome (all-cause death, ischemic stroke, or transient ischemic attack) and (2) major bleeding events (intracranial, gastrointestinal, or other) at 1 year.Analytical approachCox proportional hazards models accounting for propensity score matching were performed independently in each jurisdiction and then pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.Results55,568 patients (27,784 rivaroxaban-warfarin user matched pairs; mean age 74 years, 46% female, 33.5% with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) experienced a total of 4,733 (8.5%) effectiveness and 1,144 (2.0%) bleeding events. Compared to warfarin, rivaroxaban was associated with greater or similar effectiveness across a broad range of kidney function (pooled HRs of 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.58-1.06], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.87], and 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99]) for eGFR ≥60, 45-59, 30-44, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). Rivaroxaban was also associated with similar risk of major bleeding across all eGFR categories (pooled HRs of 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56-1.00], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.79-1.30], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.66-1.15], and 0.63 [95% CI, 0.37-1.09], respectively).LimitationsUnmeasured treatment selection bias and residual confounding.ConclusionsIn adults with AF, rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was associated with lower or similar risk of all-cause death, ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack and similar risk of bleeding across a broad range of kidney function.Plain-language summaryThis real-world study involved a large cohort of 55,568 adults with atrial fibrillation from 5 jurisdictions across Australia and Canada. It showed that the favorable safety (bleeding) and effectiveness (stroke or death) profile of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was consistent across different levels of kidney function. This study adds important safety data on the use of rivaroxaban in patients with reduced kidney function, including those with estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 in whom the risks and benefits of rivaroxaban use is most uncertain. Overall, the study supports the use of rivaroxaban as a safe and effective alternative to warfarin for atrial fibrillation across differing levels of kidney function.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare effectiveness and safety of warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in routine care.MethodsFrom nationwide registries, we identified treatment-naïve patients initiating warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation from July 2013 to December 2015 in Norway. We assessed prescription duration using reverse waiting time distribution. Adjusting for confounding in a Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated one-year risks for ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) or systemic embolism, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding; intracranial; gastrointestinal; and other bleeding. We censored at switch of treatment or 365 days of follow-up.ResultsWe included 30,820 treatment-naïve patients. Compared to warfarin, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism were 0.96 (95% CI 0.71-1.28) for dabigatran, 1.12 (95% CI 0.87-1.45) for rivaroxaban and 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.26) for apixaban. Corresponding hazard ratios for major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86) for dabigatran, 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.12) for rivaroxaban and 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.82) for apixaban. Statistically significant differences of other safety outcomes compared to warfarin were fewer intracranial bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56), rivaroxaban (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69) and apixaban (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92); fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93); and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81) and apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83).ConclusionAfter 1 year follow-up in treatment-naïve patients initiating oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation, all DOACs were similarly effective as warfarin in prevention of ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism. Safety from bleedings was similar or better, including fewer intracranial bleedings with all direct oral anticoagulants, fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran and apixaban.

Dataset Information

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in postoperative atrial fibrillation: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a single-center, randomized, and prospective trial.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in postoperative atrial fibrillation: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a single-center, randomized, and prospective trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets